


Musings, thoughts, analysis, interpretation: Season 4 Meta

by m_s_b



Category: Sherlock - Fandom
Genre: Episode: s04e01 The Six Thatchers, Gen, Meta, Season/Series 04
Language: English
Status: In-Progress
Published: 2017-01-06
Updated: 2017-01-06
Packaged: 2018-09-15 07:04:41
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 2
Words: 1,477
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/9224243
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/m_s_b/pseuds/m_s_b
Summary: Disclaimer: Although I'm a scholar-in-training, I mostly use interpretative and analytical tools characteristic for postcolonialism, feminism, psychoanalysis and postmodernism (God, I can talk for hours about "Sherlock" from postcolonial or psychoanalytical perspective)- the holistic approach is usually a bit too broad for me. Therefore, what I want to highlight is that everything presented below is my opinion and my interpretation of episodes in Season 4.It safe to assume that this project will be completed long after the finale of Season 4 airs, but, unfortunately, I don't have as much free time on my hands as I would like to have. Hence, I've decided to make this meta a multi-chapter work as it would be easier to update it this way.





	1. The Six Thatchers: Introduction

**Author's Note:**

> Disclaimer: Although I'm a scholar-in-training, I mostly use interpretative and analytical tools characteristic for postcolonialism, feminism, psychoanalysis and postmodernism (God, I can talk for hours about "Sherlock" from postcolonial or psychoanalytical perspective)- the holistic approach is usually a bit too broad for me. Therefore, what I want to highlight is that everything presented below is my opinion and my interpretation of episodes in Season 4.  
> It safe to assume that this project will be completed long after the finale of Season 4 airs, but, unfortunately, I don't have as much free time on my hands as I would like to have. Hence, I've decided to make this meta a multi-chapter work as it would be easier to update it this way.

Since I saw _The Six Thatchers_ (and all those comments on Tumblr), I have had this urge to write something about it (as I have been boring everyone to death talking about it). I have to admit that I didn’t have any great expectations concerning the new season of Sherlock, neither positive nor negative ones. However, TST managed to surprise me in a positive way. Don’t take me wrong, though – I don’t think it is a wonderful episode, by no means. I would compare it _The Abominable Bride_ and say it’s a solid 50/50. TST has a few good solid moments, but when it’s bad then, by God, it is so bad. I’ve decided to divide this meta into several categories. It’s quite probable that this meta is going to be expanded as I spend more time analysing this episode and the rest of the season.


	2. The Six Thatchers: Metaphors, symbols and foreshadowing

**Summary for the Chapter:**

> A brief look at the use of metaphors, symbols and foreshadowing in "The Six Thatchers"

**1\. Metaphors and foreshadowing**

What I really didn’t like about this episode (and recent episodes of _Sherlock_ in general) is the in-your-face attitude the creators have when introducing metaphors to the audience. There is nothing wrong with using metaphors – in fact, it is a natural element of story-telling. However, it needs to be done subtly and not through punching the viewers in the face with metaphors and foreshadowing. Unfortunately, that’s what happens in _Sherlock_.

**1.1. Appointment in Samarra**

When we were discussing TST after seeing it, my best friend told me that what really annoyed her was the constant repetition of _The Appointment in Samarra_ story – it is told by Sherlock right after the opening credits, mentioned again by Mycroft and finally referenced by Vivian Norbury in the Aquarium scene. I understand that the creators wanted to draw the viewers’ attention to this story and everything it implies, but they could do it in a less obnoxious way. Let’s move to the main point, though.

_The Appointment in Samarra_ is a story about a merchant who sends his servant to a market in Baghdad to get some food and beverage for the both of them. However, the servant returns empty-handed and scared, explaining to the merchant that he saw Death on the market. Shaken, the merchant agrees to lend his servant a horse so he could hide from Death in Samarra. When the servant leaves Baghdad, the merchant decides to go to the market where he also meets Death. He confronts Death about the whole situation, asking why she scared his servant to which she replies that she was merely surprised to see the servant in Baghdad as they are supposed to meet in Samarra. The main theme of this story is the inability to escape death – everyone has an appointment with death planned in their future.

During the whole episode, Sherlock’s dislike for this particular story is highlighted; it is not really surprising, though, as Sherlock has always been portrayed as a rebel (not to mention that he managed to ‘cheat’ death once already [or twice, if you count not being sent on a suicide mission]). At the same time, it can be speculated that _The Appointment in Samarra_ can also refer to parallels between Sherlock and Moriarty: Moriarty as the one who met death vs Sherlock as the one who escaped. Or maybe Sherlock is the servant and Moriarty is death and their final meeting is inevitable?

Finally, it is impossible to discuss _The Appointment in Samarra_ without applying it to the character of Mary. During one of the numerous discussions about TST, my friend and I realised that there are at least three interpretation of this story in relation to Mary. Firstly, Ajay refers to Mary as ‘dead woman walking’ which already suggests that the date of her appointment with death is getting closer and closer. Secondly, Mary escaping can be seen as an attempt made by the servant to avoid death. However, in case of Mary, the notion of escaping death is two-fold: she either stays in London with John and Rosemond and brings death to them or leaves her loved ones and attempts to escape death through ensuring that it is far away from people she cares about. Finally, the story can also apply to Mary’s death – as it is impossible to escape death, it can be assumed that Mary is killed off for good.

I can’t shake the feeling that the use of _The Appointment in Samarra_ was not an accidental one (apart from its symbolic/metaphorical function). The story itself reminds me of one of my most favourite Agatha Christie’s novels, _The Appointment with Death_ which also focuses on the impossibility of escaping one’s past, fate and, in consequence death. The similarities make even more sense if one remembers that Mark Gatiss played Lennox Boyton in IMO a rather disappointing episode of _Agatha Christie’s Poirot_.  

**1.2. Sharks and the Aquarium**

Another motif which is repeated throughout the whole episode is that of sharks in the London Aquarium. One of the most common ideas about sharks is the fact that they have to move constantly otherwise they’d die (however, not all species need to move to breath). The same characteristics – the constant need to move – can be ascribed to Sherlock and Mary.

In case of Sherlock, the constant movement can be understood both in literal and metaphorical sense. Sherlock’s body is almost always moving: his gestures are wild and exaggerated and when he speaks he cannot simply stay still. The only situation in which he completely stops moving is when he’s thinking; however, in such a situation, it’s his thoughts that are moving constantly and at a great speed. Therefore, movement – either physical or mental – is an essential aspect of Sherlock’s life, the one that, in fact, is keeping him alive (as his mind “rebels at stagnation”).

In case of Mary, the movement is of more physical nature. Throughout her whole life as a mercenary, she was constantly moving, travelling all around the world. This need to move is still present in her, even when she settles down with John and after Rosemond’s birth – Mary wants to participate in Sherlock and John’s investigations, she wants to be in the middle of the action. However, this need also becomes her undoing: chased by her past, Mary has to move constantly in order to save not only her own life, but also those of her loved ones.  

**1.3. The Vow**

Throughout the whole episode, Sherlock repeats several times that he made a vow to protect the Watsons. This constant repetition serves a dual purpose: firstly, it reminds the audience that Sherlock cares deeply about John, Mary and their baby; secondly, it also serves as a foreshadowing for his failure to do so. It is also a very rare example of continuity nod in Sherlock. Let’s face it, creating a sense of continuity is not the strongest point of this series; this probably stem from the fact that the timeline of a show is constructed in a such a way that the first episode of a new series is an immediate continuation of the finale of the previous season [with the exception of TRF and TEH, but in this case the passing of time needed to be indicated].

**1.4. Others**

At certain point in the episode Mary mentions that receptionists seem to know everything. Although Vivian Norbury is a secretary and not a receptionist, she, just like cabby in _The Study in Pink_ , is a person who is invisible to others due to her profession and, because of that, people do not hesitate to discuss the matters of the highest importance in her presence. Vivian uses this knowledge to her benefit and to execute her revenge on those who don’t see her potential (There is an eerily similar episode in the 1st season of _Elementary_ ).

There is also an example of possible foreshadowing. At the beginning of the episode, when the main Trio solves numerous cases, Sherlock states ‘It’s never twins’. It is a repetition of Sherlock’s conclusion concerning the body of Emilia Ricolletti in TAB. Therefore, it can be assumed that somewhere during this season there will be a case where the solution will be twins (or the solution would seem to be twins, but, in the end, it’d be something else), maybe even in the whole Moriarty conundrum [I have to admit, I’m not a fan of such a solution].

It is also worth noticing that ‘it’s never twins’ is a reference to a set of rules (a Decalogue) for writing detective fiction published in 1929 by Ronald Knox as a preface to _Best Detective Stories of 1928-29_. The last of those rules claims that “twin brothers, and doubles generally, must not appear unless we have been duly prepared for them” (I doubt Knox would consider two mentions of his rule as preparation of the audience for this plot device).

**Author's Note:**

> This chapter is introductory one. The first part of analysis/interpretation is presented in the second one.


End file.
